Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informational Development

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Moved to Draft:Informational Development. So Why 20:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Informational Development

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not read like a neutral presentation of the views of reliable sources, but partly like an opinion essay and partly like a blurb for a governmental program. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it is clearly an essay like structure with sources thrown in to support specific point. Overall topic doesn't seem to be notable, as presented here, even if various aspects of it might be. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NEXIST for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a work in progress, and rather requires more research. A point about controversy in Africa, where resources could be better spent on basic living will be added soon. It was a mistake that it was published so soon, and normally it should have gone to sandbox. I'll also search for some community initiatives and roles of NGO. Perhaps listing by State fell short of the point. Thanks for your efforts. --PasswordDoesNotGoHere (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author appears to be proposing draftification, which is fine with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per PasswordDoesNotGoHere's comment above. Also, the topic is notable and covered in reliable sources, as evidenced particularly from searches in Google Scholar, as well as some coverage in Google Books and News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I don't have a problem with this... Seems like a good solution in this case. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.